BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair A
2009-2010 Regular Session B
1
2
8
AB 1286 (Huber) 6
As Introduced February 27, 2009
Hearing date: June 16, 2009
Penal Code
SM:mc
FIREARMS: EXEMPTING POST-CERTIFIED ACADEMIES FROM
MONTHLY HANDGUN PURCHASE LIMITATIONS
HISTORY
Source: California Academy Directors Association
Prior Legislation: AB 202 (Knox) - Chap. 128, Stats. 1999
Support: California State Sheriffs' Association; American River
College; Sacramento County Sheriff; San Bernardino
County Sheriff; Contra Costa County Sheriff; Regional
Law Enforcement Training Center and Police Academy at
Rio Hondo College; Southwestern Community College Police
Academy; Butte College Public Safety Training &
Education Center; State Center Regional Training
Facility (Fresno City College Police Academy); Yuba
Community College District's Public Safety Center;
Escondido Police Officer's Association, Inc.; Palomar
College Police Academy
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 77 - Noes 0
(More)
AB 1286 (Huber)
PageB
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD COMMUNITY COLLEGES CERTIFIED BY THE COMMISSION ON PEACE
OFFICER STANDARDS AND TRAINING (POST), AS SPECIFIED, BE EXEMPTED
FROM THE LAW WHICH PREVENTS ANY PERSON FROM MAKING AN APPLICATION TO
PURCHASE MORE THAN ONE FIREARM CAPABLE OF BEING CONCEALED UPON THE
PERSON WITHIN ANY 30-DAY PERIOD?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to exempt community colleges that
are certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and
Training (POST) to present the law enforcement academy basic
course or other Commission-certified law enforcement training
from the law which prevents any person from making an
application to purchase more than one firearm capable of being
concealed upon the person within any 30-day period.
Existing law provides that, in establishing the standards for
training, Commission on POST shall permit the required training
to be obtained at institutions approved by Commission on POST.
(Penal Code 13511(a).)
Existing law prohibits specified persons and corporations from
knowingly supplying, selling or giving possession or control of
a firearm to any person within specified prohibited classes.
(Penal Code 12072(a)(1).)
Existing law states that no person shall make an application to
purchase more than one pistol, revolver, or other firearm
capable of being concealed on the person within any 30-day
period. (Penal Code 12072(a)(9)(A).)
Existing law exempts from the prohibition relating to applying
to purchase more than one firearm, as specified, within a 30-day
period, specified persons and groups, including:
any law enforcement agency;
(More)
AB 1286 (Huber)
PageC
any agency duly authorized to perform law enforcement
duties;
any state or local correctional facility;
any private security company licensed to do business in
California;
any person who is properly identified as a full-time
paid peace officer, as defined, and who is authorized to,
and does carry a firearm during the course and scope of his
or her employment as a peace officer;
any motion picture, television, or video production
company or entertainment or theatrical company whose
production by its nature involves the use of a firearm;
any transaction conducted through a licensed firearms
dealer, as specified;
any person who is licensed as a collector pursuant to
federal law and regulations and who has a current
certificate of eligibility issued to him or her by the
Department of Justice (DOJ), as specified;
the exchange of a pistol, revolver, or other firearm
capable of being concealed upon the person where the dealer
purchased that firearm from the person seeking the exchange
within the 30-day period immediately preceding the date of
exchange or replacement;
the replacement of a pistol, revolver, or other firearm
capable of being concealed upon the person when the
person's pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of
being concealed upon the person was lost or stolen, and the
person reported that firearm lost or stolen prior to the
completion of the application to purchase to any local law
enforcement agency of the city, county, or city and county
in which he or she resides; and
(More)
AB 1286 (Huber)
PageD
the return of any pistol, revolver, or other firearm
capable of being concealed upon the person to its owner.
(Penal Code 12072(a)(9)(B)(i) to (xii).)
Existing law provides that no handgun shall be delivered
whenever the dealer is notified by the Department of Justice
that within the preceding 30-day period the purchaser has made
another application to purchase a handgun, as specified. (Penal
Code 12072(c)(6).)
Existing law prohibits the sale, supply or delivery of a pistol,
revolver, or firearm capable of being concealed upon the person
to any person under the age of 21 years or any other firearm to
a person under the age of 18 years. (Penal Code 12072(b).)
Existing law establishes numerous administrative requirements
with respect to the sales of handguns, including obtaining a
handgun safety certificate, requirements for persons holding
dealers' licenses, and obtaining a verification number via the
Internet. (Penal Code 12072.)
This bill exempts community colleges certified by the Commission
on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) to present the
law enforcement academy basic course or other
Commission-certified law enforcement training from the law which
prevents any person from making an application to purchase more
than one firearm capable of being concealed upon the person
within any 30-day period.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
California continues to face a severe prison overcrowding
crisis. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)
currently has about 170,000 inmates under its jurisdiction. Due
to a lack of traditional housing space available, the department
houses roughly 15,000 inmates in gyms and dayrooms.
California's prison population has increased by 125% (an average
of 4% annually) over the past 20 years, growing from 76,000
inmates to 171,000 inmates, far outpacing the state's population
(More)
AB 1286 (Huber)
PageE
growth rate for the age cohort with the highest risk of
incarceration.<1>
In December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against
CDCR sought a court-ordered limit on the prison population
pursuant to the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On
February 9, 2009, the three-judge federal court panel issued a
tentative ruling that included the following conclusions with
respect to overcrowding:
No party contests that California's prisons are
overcrowded, however measured, and whether considered
in comparison to prisons in other states or jails
within this state. There are simply too many
prisoners for the existing capacity. The Governor,
the principal defendant, declared a state of emergency
in 2006 because of the "severe overcrowding" in
California's prisons, which has caused "substantial
risk to the health and safety of the men and women who
work inside these prisons and the inmates housed in
them." . . . A state appellate court upheld the
Governor's proclamation, holding that the evidence
supported the existence of conditions of "extreme
peril to the safety of persons and property."
(citation omitted) The Governor's declaration of the
state of emergency remains in effect to this day.
. . . the evidence is compelling that there is no
relief other than a prisoner release order that will
remedy the unconstitutional prison conditions.
. . .
----------------------
<1> "Between 1987 and 2007, California's population of ages 15
through 44 - the age cohort with the highest risk for
incarceration - grew by an average of less than 1% annually,
which is a pace much slower than the growth in prison
admissions." (2009-2010 Budget Analysis Series, Judicial and
Criminal Justice, Legislative Analyst's Office (January 30,
2009).)
(More)
AB 1286 (Huber)
PageF
Although the evidence may be less than perfectly
clear, it appears to the Court that in order to
alleviate the constitutional violations California's
inmate population must be reduced to at most 120% to
145% of design capacity, with some institutions or
clinical programs at or below 100%. We caution the
parties, however, that these are not firm figures and
that the Court reserves the right - until its final
ruling - to determine that a higher or lower figure is
appropriate in general or in particular types of
facilities.
. . .
Under the PLRA, any prisoner release order that we
issue will be narrowly drawn, extend no further than
necessary to correct the violation of constitutional
rights, and be the least intrusive means necessary to
correct the violation of those rights. For this
reason, it is our present intention to adopt an order
requiring the State to develop a plan to reduce the
prison population to 120% or 145% of the prison's
design capacity (or somewhere in between) within a
period of two or three years.<2>
The final outcome of the panel's tentative decision, as well as
any appeal that may be in response to the panel's final
decision, is unknown at the time of this writing.
(More)
---------------------------
<2> Three Judge Court Tentative Ruling, Coleman v.
Schwarzenegger, Plata v. Schwarzenegger, in the United States
District Courts for the Eastern District of California and the
Northern District of California United States District Court
composed of three judges pursuant to Section 2284, Title 28
United States Code (Feb. 9, 2009).
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis outlined above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
Penal Code 12072 stipulates that most people and
organizations are prohibited from purchasing more than
one concealable handgun within a thirty day period.
Currently exempted from this law are law enforcement
agencies, state and local correctional facilities,
licensed private security companies, peace officers,
licensed firearm collectors and motion picture,
television and video production companies. The
exemption does not apply to police training academies.
Throughout California, there are 39 peace officer
training academies that require access to numerous
concealable firearms to ensure competent handgun
skill, which is required of all peace officers. The
exemption that applies to law enforcement
organizations does not include 19 of the 39 peace
officer training academies.
California community colleges have a long, rich and
safe history of training California peace officers and
there is no justification for including some
facilities in the 30-day exemption while excluding
others.
AB 1286 allows community colleges to have an exemption
from the one-gun-a-month purchase limitation so they
can purchase enough firearms to instruct peace officer
trainees in safe firearm usage.
(More)
AB 1286 (Huber)
PageH
2. Correcting an Oversight
In 1999, California, following the example of Virginia, imposed
a one-per-month limit on handgun purchases. The analysis of the
Senate Public Safety Committee at that time indicates that the
author's purpose was to:
. . . curtail the illegal gun market, disarm
criminals, and save lives by preventing multiple
purchases of handguns through legitimate channels.
Preventing multiple purchases takes the profit out of
black market sales and puts gun traffickers and straw
purchasers out of business. (Senate Public Safety
Committee analysis of AB 202 (Knox), Chap. 128, Stats
1999.)
At the same time the limit was imposed, several exceptions
were created, including transactions conducted by:
any law enforcement agency;
any agency duly authorized to perform law
enforcement duties;
any state or local correctional facility;
any private security company licensed to do
business in California;
any person who is properly identified as a
full-time paid peace officer, as defined, as
specified; and
any transaction conducted through a law enforcement
agency, as specified.
According to information provided to the Committee by POST, it
certifies 40 law enforcement academies statewide. Of these,
there are two types of academies: those run by a specific law
enforcement agency, such as CHP or LAPD. A person who wants to
work for one of those agencies must attend the academy run by
that agency. Those agencies, because they are an extension of a
law enforcement agency, are exempted from the one
handgun-per-month limit. However, POST also certifies
AB 1286 (Huber)
PageI
college-affiliated academies. These academies serve regional
areas that usually contain smaller law enforcement jurisdictions
that cannot support their own academy because they don't hire at
the level larger agencies do. Napa Valley College Academy, for
example, serves Vacaville, Fairfield, Napa and surrounding areas
collecting small numbers of recruits from each local area until
they have enough for a full class (usually 25-100 recruits).
Thus, their classes are filled with recruits training to work
for multiple agencies.
Due to an oversight, these college-affiliated academies are not
exempt from the one-per-month limit on handgun purchases. This
restricts their ability to purchase a quantity of firearms in
anticipation of a full class.
AB 1286 will exempt these college-affiliated academies from the
one-per-month limit and this exemption will apply only to POST
certified academies. This exemption appears to be consistent
with the original intent of the legislation which created the
one-per-month limitation.
SHOULD THESE POST-CERTIFIED, COLLEGE-AFFILIATED ACADEMIES
BE EXEMPT FROM THE ONE HANDGUN-PER-MONTH PURCHASE
RESTRICTION?
***************